On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:22:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Do we know for certain that installation of network-manager excludes
> alternatives? Tollef replied to me on debian-devel wondering why people
> who don't want to use network-manager just disable it, which implies that
> there's so
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> Michael Biebl writes:
> > Also, as an alternative if you can't use network-manager for whatever
> > reasons, you can install gnome-core and disable network-manager. This
> > is as simple as
>
> > "update-rc.d n
Michael Biebl writes ("Re: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs Depends"):
> Am 17.07.2012 14:56, schrieb Ian Jackson:
> > It seems to me that:
> >
> > * n-m breaks the networking of enough people that this is a
> >significant problem which should be fixed.
>
> This is pure FUD without furt
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> Ah; so in my previous message to the bug, I had overlooked that there was an
> upgrade issue here. I agree that changing the network handling on upgrade
> in this way is problematic, and that additional car
Sune Vuorela writes ("Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> Metapackages is *someones* *subjective* opinion what a specific set
> should do. And this subjective opinion is up to the maintainer to
> figure it out. Not anyone else.
I don't agree with this as a matter of pr
Michael Biebl writes ("Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> We thus tried a compromise, where the network-manager postinst script
> automatically comments out dhcp-type connections in /e/n/i (and restores
> them, in case the package is removed again,fwiw).
So just to be
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:15:34PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > - GNOME upstream have declared Network Manager to be an integral
> > part of GNOME and the Debian maintainer is insisting on following
> >
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:15:34PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> - GNOME upstream have declared Network Manager to be an integral
> part of GNOME and the Debian maintainer is insisting on following
> their lead in gnome-core. The maintainer is essentially asserting
> that the very purp
Michael Biebl writes:
> On 17.07.2012 22:30, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If there's a clean way to disable network-manager, I think that's a
>> reasonable alternative to either creating yet another meta-package or
>> arguing about Depends vs. Recommends in gnome-core. But there seems to
>> be a lot o
On 17.07.2012 22:30, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Biebl writes:
>
>> Also, as an alternative if you can't use network-manager for whatever
>> reasons, you can install gnome-core and disable network-manager. This
>> is as simple as
>
>> "update-rc.d network-manager disable"
>
> [...]
>
>> As
there is a small typo...
On 17.07.2012 23:45, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Just some numbers I got by grepping over the archive on lintian.d.o:
>
> # of packages shipping .desktop files with MimeType associations: 601
^
On Tuesday 17 July 2012 19:15:34 Ian Jackson wrote:
> - Some people claim that metapackages should not use Recommends.
> I disagree.
Metapackages is *someones* *subjective* opinion what a specific set should do.
And this subjective opinion is up to the maintainer to figure it out. Not
anyo
Just some numbers I got by grepping over the archive on lintian.d.o:
# of packages shipping .desktop files with MimeType associations: 601
# of packages shipping a corresponding mime file in
/usr/lib/mime/packages: 89
If a missing mime file would mean an RC bug, this would instantly make
514 pack
>
> Lastly, I would like to thank Brian for his impressively 16-years long
> work on
> mime-support. Brian, feel free to stay among the uploaders !
>
Thanks. I wish I had the energy to make some of the much-needed changes
but I'm just not involved with the project enough these days to have a goo
Michael Biebl writes:
> Also, as an alternative if you can't use network-manager for whatever
> reasons, you can install gnome-core and disable network-manager. This
> is as simple as
> "update-rc.d network-manager disable"
[...]
> As for the situation where nm is installed but doesn't manage
Am 17.07.2012 14:56, schrieb Ian Jackson:
> block 645656 by 681834
> thanks
>
> The argument about the dependency from gnome-core to network-manager
> has now reached the TC. This has been extensive discussed, most
> recently on debian-devel. The most recent response from Josselin is
> here:
>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:29:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Noel David Torres Taño writes ("Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome,
> Recommends vs Depends"):
> > Core to the issue here is that the n-m Depends gets forced even into users
> > that wants the whole platform, that is, the 'gnome'
Hi Andrei,
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 05:03:54PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Given the above and also the recent problems in fitting the two major
> Desktop Environments on only one CD each it would probably help if the
> Technical Committee would take some official position on the following:
>
Hi,
On 2012-07-17 10:35, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could someone who has the time and the tools available do a check on all
> the dependencies in main for dependencies on non-free/contrib? This
> information would be very helpful in evaluating tech-ctte bug #681419. In
> particular: [...]
I wrote a
* Niels Thykier , 2012-07-17, 20:03:
It would also be quite interesting, although much harder to determine,
whether there are any scenarios where such a dependency would result
in a non-free package being installed by default. If, for example,
there's a dependency on foo | foo-nonfree and some
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: tech-ctte help needed: main dependencies on
non-free/contrib"):
> I suspect installability checking of all packages should find them if
> they are there. One run with non-free+contrib and one without - the
> "newly" uninstallable between the two runs should be set you a
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> Do we know for certain that installation of network-manager excludes
> alternatives? Tollef replied to me on debian-devel wondering why people
> who don't want to use network-manager just disable it, which implie
On 2012-07-17 19:35, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> [...]
>
> It would also be quite interesting, although much harder to determine,
> whether there are any scenarios where such a dependency would result in a
> non-free package being installed by default. If, for example, there's a
> depen
Hello all,
Could someone who has the time and the tools available do a check on all
the dependencies in main for dependencies on non-free/contrib? This
information would be very helpful in evaluating tech-ctte bug #681419. In
particular:
* How many total dependencies are there? (We're only int
Ian Jackson writes:
> Bdale Garbee writes:
>> Gergely Nagy writes:
>>> As a user, my expectation is that if I install a *meta* package, then
>>> the whole platform will be installed, and will be kept
>>> installed. That's the main reason I install meta packages.
>> I comprehend you, but to me t
Noel David Torres Taño writes ("Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome,
Recommends vs Depends"):
> Core to the issue here is that the n-m Depends gets forced even into users
> that wants the whole platform, that is, the 'gnome' package.
Right:
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome
Reco
On Martes, 17 de julio de 2012 16:39:47 Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Gergely Nagy writes:
[...]
> > How about a solution suggested earlier on debian-devel@? At least one of
> >
> > the Gnome maintainers showed interest in something like this:
> > * Introduce a gnome-minimal (or any other, more suitabl
Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> I believe our goal should be to require that there not be a hard Depends
> relationship. I would be equally satisfied if the dependency were just
> dropped, or if it were possible to craft a suitable "or" list of
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> But I still find interesting that in an example that you use to argue
> for transparency, a private mail exchange has played a relevant role.
I don't find this at all surprising. In fact, I would be stunned if this
isn't the case in most such situations.
I probably
Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> Gergely Nagy writes:
> > As a user, my expectation is that if I install a *meta* package, then
> > the whole platform will be installed, and will be kept installed. That's
> > the main reason I install meta packa
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > * Overrule the maintainer of gnome-core, requiring that the
> >dependency on network-manager be changed to Recommends;
>
> That would work.
>
> I believe our goal should be to
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages
in main"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > Would we also want to do something to avoid the package managers
> > complaining about nonexistent virtual packages ? I guess they are
> > already happy to ignore references to un
Ian Jackson writes:
> Do we know what proportion of the existing references out of main into
> non-free/contrib could be done this way ?
I'm not sure; we'd have to check. However, it seems like it should handle
all of them except any that would need a versioned dependency.
> That would at leas
Answering to my own mail.
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 05:38 +, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 09:27 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 2) Install in Alioth's collab-maint a git repository made with the --debsnap
> >option of git-import-dscs, unless we try to go deeper in t
Gergely Nagy writes:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
>> * There is no good reason not to use Recommends (or indeed Suggests)
>>in a metapackage.
>
> I'd like to respectfully disagree here - though I've tried to express
> this on debian-devel@ too, apparently, with little success.
>
> As a user, my
Ian Jackson writes:
> The argument about the dependency from gnome-core to network-manager
> has now reached the TC.
FWIW, I use network-manager with xfce4 on my notebook, and with suitable
configuration find it an acceptable solution for my needs.
As a matter of policy, though, it seems compl
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> Currently the repository only has 2 types in the Release file: Automatic
> yes and no. Maybe it is time to add a third that would cause frontends to
> avoid installing any new package of that type and ask before installing
> if they must to resolve some dependency c
Ian Jackson writes:
> * There is no good reason not to use Recommends (or indeed Suggests)
>in a metapackage.
I'd like to respectfully disagree here - though I've tried to express
this on debian-devel@ too, apparently, with little success.
As a user, my expectation is that if I install a *
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 645656 by 681834
Bug #645656 [gnome-core] gnome-core: please re-soften the network-manager-gnome
dependency
645656 was not blocked by any bugs.
645656 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 645656: 681834 and 681783
> thanks
St
block 645656 by 681834
thanks
The argument about the dependency from gnome-core to network-manager
has now reached the TC. This has been extensive discussed, most
recently on debian-devel. The most recent response from Josselin is
here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00210.htm
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages
in main"):
> Well, if we want to go this route, we could require use of a virtual
> package in all cases like this. Then foo and foo-nonfree would both
> Provide: foo (and probably Conflicts: foo), and those who want
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on
non-free packages in main"):
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:59:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > How about instead we think about what the real issue is. The FSF's
> > view AIUI is that they want to avoid recommending (in th
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:01:50PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> As an example, the wine package was in a very similar state to the
> python package a few months back. Instead of complaining about the
> maintainer (and likely leading to a flamewar), I did my best to get
> work done while concurr
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 05:09:12PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > I think this is a real problem. In general people sometimes find that
> > they need to enable non-free for some particular reason (perhaps even
> > just too make their nic work or something). That shouldn
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:59:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free
> packages in main"):
> > Perhaps the motivation behind this centers around FSF expectations on
> > Debian's handling of non-free? If that is the case, wouldn't
45 matches
Mail list logo
